The Wolf Man: remake!
 

Del Toro is The Wolf Man
Source: Variety
March 15, 2006


Universal Pictures will scare up a new version of its horror classic The Wolf Man, with Benicio Del Toro playing the title role, reports Variety.

Se7en screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker has begun writing the script. Scott Stuber, Rick Yorn, Mary Parent and Del Toro will produce.

Like the 1941 original that starred Lon Chaney Jr., the new film will be set in Victorian England. Del Toro will play a man who returns from America to his ancestral homeland, gets bitten by a werewolf and begins a hairy moonlight existence.

Walker spent several months working on some frightening new twists to a familiar tale, adding several characters and plot points that take advantage of cutting-edge visual effects technology.

Walker will turn in his first draft by the spring, and the producers and studio are optimistic that The Wolf Man will shoot early in 2007, after Del Toro completes Guerrilla, the Che Guevara film being directed by Steven Soderbergh.

The expectation is that The Wolf Man will be a summer 2008 tentpole.

Del Toro's an interesting enough choice for the lead, and Walker hasn't done a bad movie yet (except Hideaway, which wasn't THAT bad), so this one might not be so bad

start of a new trend ?
or continuation i guess ... they're reaching back further into the past for remakes

(i'm not counting the shitty recent mummy movies or the van helsing travesty)

Why wouldnt you count them? Even though they arent very good movies, they do exist, and they are undobtably part of the trend. Who says this wont be the same kind of fiasco as The Mummy?

eternal optimism ? :cool:



but as for your 1st question ... they werent remakes ...

This could be interesting. As long as they keep the CGI to a minimum.

Van Helsing wasn't, but I dont see how The Mummy wasn't a remake. Followed a similar plot to the original, simply changed for modern audiences. Isn't that basically the defination of a remake?

God, I really hope this doesn't happen.

Please, PLEASE don't let this happen.

*Falls to the ground, shaking*

I wouldn't mind seeing this if they can do it right. The bit about using "cutting edge visual technologies" scares me a bit. A good blend of CG and Make-up can work wonders though.

it wasnt a remake, by your opinion and definition every movie that has had something in common with another movie is a remake. when 90% of the time it is just an insperation.

and please dont go into how you thought they were alike, just sid down watch the mummy(1932), then watch the mummy(1999).

it was based off the original movie, but there are many differences.

well, there was a mummy in both films :p

I'd check it out, It'll probably suck but I'd see it.

there was also a mummy in milf hunter, is that a remake?

my point exactly :)





mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


milfs .... :p

phew, not just me then

is this milf watcher anonymous?




hi my name is Nyarlathotep....

and i'm a milf watcher :D

So by your logic, Cronenberg's The Fly wasnt a remake? Or Carpenter's The Thing? The both change the original story alot, does that mean they arent remakes?

i think both of these remakes left the majority of the story intact..
(especially the thing)

i dont think van helsing or the recent mummy films were ever intended to be remakes .. just films with the same characters in them

from memory the thing is a lot closer to the original book than the first film

you mean the book didnt say anything about carrots ? :D

and no walking vegetables in scuba gear either :mad:

the nice thing about the 2 examples given (the thing, and the fly)
is that they were two movies that made excellent use of special effects without sacrificing the integrity of the story.

That mummy film and the van helsing travesty did nothing but show off a big misspent budget and introduce a bunch of forgettable and unlikeable characters. (not to mention the most laughable dracula i can personally remember)

The Thing wasn't a remake of The Thing From Another World, it was another adaptation of Who Goes There. Like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory wasn't a remake of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, it was another adaptation of the book.


I have faith in this one for the time being, since it has a good writer

I have to agree that The Mummy and Van Helsing were not remakes. Like An American Werewolf in London and The Howling were not a remakes of The Wolfman; and Interview With A Vampire and The Hunger are not remakes of Dracula. Although if you read the synopsis on Netflix for The Mummy(1999), it does say it's a remake, so who knows.

I have to agree that Van Helsing was terrible. The actor that played Dracula was a joke. Also what was up with the automatic crossbow, we couldn't make a weapon like in this time and age. As much as I liked Hugh Jackman in the X-Men series and Kate Beckinsdale in Underworld, I was totally disappointed with them in this dreg.

I must disagree with you on The Mummy. It was not a horror movie, and it never tried to be. It was an action adventure with lots of humor and terrific action. I thought Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz have wonderful chemistry. The supporting actors, John Hannah, Oded Fehr, also do a wonderful job, especially Kevin J O'Connor as the rat Beni. Arnold Vosloo was also well cast as Imhotep. It was never meant to be an Oscar winner. It was meant to be a fun movie, and I can honestly say I had fun watching it. A guilty pleasure I suppose.

i've always liked vosloo - i thought he was the only thing that movie had going for it ..

i didnt find there was any chemistry at all with the other leads with was my biggest problem with the movie ..
fraser can be good .. but as a support - not a lead.. he just doesnt have the charisma. I want to like him but he just doesnt have the edge .. he's sort of a poor mans tim robbins.

i just found it to be another film where they attempted 95% action throughout the film, frantically paced so there was no developement of the characters .. just action and reaction ..